Notam Notification?????

[Stuphedd]

If some club members are desperate for a regular fix and their club is in the restricted zone , then I would  have thought other clubs that lie just outside the zone, could accommodate them for a few sessions ?

 

cheers

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

8 minutes ago, Stuphedd said:

If some club members are desperate for a regular fix and their club is in the restricted zone , then I would  have thought other clubs that lie just outside the zone, could accommodate them for a few sessions ?

 

cheers

I would hope so. Theres also the Buckminster centenary flyin from today until Sunday too.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I’m sorry Andy but the impression you’re giving is that it’s seen as a fait accompli and the BMFA is more interested in promoting its own event than challenging the outrageous statement from the police that they are not prepared to consider exemptions on merit. 
 

Note that I said “impression” and as a long time supporter of the BMFA I can only hope that efforts are going on in the background.  I would understand if these need to be done in private but perhaps it would be possible to indicate that work is in progress?

[kc]

If this goes unchallenged then it may well set a precedent and happen any time to any flying field that is near any event.   We need to draw the distinction between rogue flyers and established clubs flying responsibly.  

 

When the London Olympics was on a ban was put on model flying at lots of clubs and seemingly not challenged, now it seems the period is longer.   

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

6 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

I’m sorry Andy but the impression you’re giving is that it’s seen as a fait accompli and the BMFA is more interested in promoting its own event than challenging the outrageous statement from the police that they are not prepared to consider exemptions on merit. 
 

Note that I said “impression” and as a long time supporter of the BMFA I can only hope that efforts are going on in the background.  I would understand if these need to be done in private but perhaps it would be possible to indicate that work is in progress?

Martin

 

Temporary airspace restrictions are nothing new and there will be the odd occasion (thankfully not too often) where we have no choice, in certain areas on a temporary basis, but to not fly or travel out of the restricted area to fly at other clubs or events. Unfortunately, that is the world we live and operate in.

We have had long discussions with West Midlands Police who are prepared to look at exceptions on merit but set against their requirements for as sterile an airspace as possible and the nature of the Commonwealth games they simply were not prepared to make an exception for recreational flying of any kind whether manned or unmanned.

We have managed to get exceptions in previous cases, for example, last years CoP26 in Glasgow. Sometimes exceptions will be made, sometimes they will not.  

We need to be realistic in what is achievable, unfortunately for the Commonwealth games we have been unable to secure an exception. That isn’t going to change no matter how much time and effort we put in to it.
 

Suggestions of taking the matter to the high court, with the huge expense that would involve (almost certainly a 6 figure cost) for a case that is a guaranteed lose are simply not realistic or a responsible use of members money, or even possible in the time frame available. Also the suggestion that if the BMFA had distanced itself from ‘drones’ then we wouldn’t have these temporary restrictions is just nonsense I’m afraid, and something that would have massively marginalised the BMFA in the many discussions and successful negotiations that have taken place over recent years that has effectively meant that in general we are still able to operate pretty much as we always have.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Good post Andy, fight sensibly and don't squander the members money on lost causes.

[Zflyer]

I totally agree. The bit that should be questioned however is the no right to appeal or have an exception considered, not the ban itself.

That said little can be done now and hate to say it but the  West Midlands Police C.C. is crap, unless your very woke.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

7 minutes ago, Zflyer said:

I totally agree. The bit that should be questioned however is the no right to appeal or have an exception considered, not the ban itself.

That said little can be done now and hate to say it but the  West Midlands Police C.C. is crap, unless your very woke.

They considered an exception, unfortunately in their opinion, it didn't stand on its merits when they considered their requirements for a sterile airspace.

[Peter Jenkins]

9 hours ago, kc said:

If this goes unchallenged then it may well set a precedent and happen any time to any flying field that is near any event.   We need to draw the distinction between rogue flyers and established clubs flying responsibly.  

 

When the London Olympics was on a ban was put on model flying at lots of clubs and seemingly not challenged, now it seems the period is longer.   

I fear that when the security of the general public is at issue then very few Police or Military authorities are going to look at a model flying site as being given an exemption.  Just imagine if someone with evil intentions operated a "drone" from your patch to attack an event.  As far as the security boys, and girls, are concerned, there is a potential risk of a terrorist attack on a high visibility event like the Commonwealth Games.  No one is going to stick their neck out and give model flying clubs a pass to continue to operate just in case this weak link is exploited.  Sadly, we live in a world where giving people the benefit of the doubt can lead to death and destruction.  There is also the international issue of the UK being pilloried for allowing model flying to continue and then having an attack launched from such a site.  Of course, we all know that bad guys don't obey the rules so a drone attack could be launched from someone's back garden within the exclusion zone.  That's what the jammers are there to defeat.  However, in today's world the UK and its security bodies would be roundly criticised were an attack found to have originated from a recognised model flying site that had been allowed to continue operating.  You are damned if you do and damned if you don't!  

[Zflyer]

The need for security is always given paramount thought. However I can still drive my car into the exclusion zone and even park it near to venues and 100's, possibly 1000's of people and yet no one is searching my vehicle. Eight miles away model planes and drones do not get to fly. I will obviously and rightly adhere to the rules. Are you saying Andy that the BMFA ACTIVELY engaged in conversation and got to explain the flying nuances.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

8 minutes ago, Zflyer said:

 Are you saying Andy that the BMFA ACTIVELY engaged in conversation and got to explain the flying nuances.

Yes

[Zflyer]

Would be interesting to know what the conversation was and what the response was. If it was just a straightforward no then we really will have to up our game.

[Ron Gray]

21 hours ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

We have had long discussions with West Midlands Police

Implies that it was not a straight no.

[Peter Jenkins]

2 hours ago, Zflyer said:

Would be interesting to know what the conversation was and what the response was. If it was just a straightforward no then we really will have to up our game.

Zflyer, you clearly have some expertise in this area so why not volunteer your services to the BMFA.  I'm sure they would be happy to capitalise on that expertise.

 

[kc]

You seem to have accepted there is actually some risk from club model flying!   There is MORE risk if clubs are banned from flying -  if club fields are unused then terrorists could easily set up their drones from there and it would go unnoticed by the public as it's normal to see planes there.   But if club members are at the field any suspicious actions would get noticed and reported.    Club members are always on the lookout around there field for any aerial activity - don't we all look up when a fullsize aircraft comes near?  Any odd activity would be spotted very quickly and surely we would report it.    But if aeromodellers have been forced to go elsewhere these informed observers will be absent!

 

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Where's it said that this is about risk from model flying clubs ?

As I recall a "Sterile airspace" is required, hence the NOTAM.

Andy S has told us they engaged about exemptions, and this time the response was No.

Sometimes life has other priorities than us going flying, doomsday has arrived is a tad dramatic meethinks.

Take a course in counter terrorism ? Not for me ta.

[Ron Gray]

Do you honestly think that any terrorist would chose to fly from a model aircraft flying field????

[Pete Knight]

When I first posted this item I was generally concerned with the lack of information from the BMFA and it took two attempts to get a response (luckily I had Andy S BMFA email).

The CAA continually issue Notam's for various reason's and to monitor the issues I guess would be time consuming, thank you Ron Gray for the info on Notam websites, this particular site allows you to filter locations. Perhaps a club committee member could volunteer to take up the role of checking the local area for new Notams maybe on a monthly / weekly basis. 

My primary concern is the time the Notam was issued and the time the BMFA put out a notification (in this case a day before the closure came into force) I know that Andy had been  in talks with the WM Police,  I would suggest that more dialog between the CAA and BMFA be looked into regarding notification to the BMFA of airspace closures and restrictions.

Basically aircraft and heli flyers were forced to register with the CAA under the banner of "Drone flyers" smack's of the CB and 27meg fiasco, the authorities couldn't manage CB and with the influx of cheap drones into most superstores once again the legitimate flyer is targeted.

I hear stories coming across the pond that our colleagues in the US of A are battling potential new legislation requiring each aircraft to send out a identifying signal...transponder type thing, what happens in the States normally filters across to the UK and Europe.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Pete Knight

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

1 hour ago, Pete Knight said:

The CAA continually issue Notam's for various reason's and to monitor the issues I guess would be time consuming, thank you Ron Gray for the info on Notam websites, this particular site allows you to filter locations. Perhaps a club committee member could volunteer to take up the role of checking the local area for new Notams maybe on a monthly / weekly basis. 

I would recommend everyone subscribes to http://skywise.caa.co.uk/  you then receive email notifications of any temporary restrictions. From a legal perspective it is the responsibility of the Operator to make themselves aware of any airspace restrictions and they should be delegating that responsibility to a committee member.  See https://rcc.bmfa.uk/article-16#4-2-operator-responsibilities  

It is the owner of the Operator ID on the aircraft that is responsible, nobody else.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Andy Symons - BMFA

[RottenRow]

38 minutes ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

I would recommend everyone subscribes to http://skywise.caa.co.uk/  you then receive email notifications of any temporary restrictions. From a legal perspective it is the responsibility of the Operator to make themselves aware of any airspace restrictions and they should be delegating that responsibility to a committee member.  See https://rcc.bmfa.uk/article-16#4-2-operator-responsibilities

 

Andy,

 

Have you omitted the word 'not' from the last sentence in this statement???

 

I hope so! As a committee member myself I would not accept the responsibility of assuring that all of our club members make themselves aware of these restrictions, and of proving that to be the case, as could be required in a court case for example.

 

Brian.

[Alan Gorham_]

1 hour ago, RottenRow said:

 

Andy,

 

Have you omitted the word 'not' from the last sentence in this statement???

 

I hope so! As a committee member myself I would not accept the responsibility of assuring that all of our club members make themselves aware of these restrictions, and of proving that to be the case, as could be required in a court case for example.

 

Brian.

 

Andy obviously has accidentally omitted the word "not", as you point out. The statement is contradictory to the previous one about operator's responsibility for flight safety otherwise.

[Alan Gorham_]

3 hours ago, Pete Knight said:

When I first posted this item I was generally concerned with the lack of information from the BMFA and it took two attempts to get a response (luckily I had Andy S BMFA email).

The CAA continually issue Notam's for various reason's and to monitor the issues I guess would be time consuming, thank you Ron Gray for the info on Notam websites, this particular site allows you to filter locations. Perhaps a club committee member could volunteer to take up the role of checking the local area for new Notams maybe on a monthly / weekly basis. 

My primary concern is the time the Notam was issued and the time the BMFA put out a notification (in this case a day before the closure came into force) I know that Andy had been  in talks with the WM Police,  I would suggest that more dialog between the CAA and BMFA be looked into regarding notification to the BMFA of airspace closures and restrictions.

Basically aircraft and heli flyers were forced to register with the CAA under the banner of "Drone flyers" smack's of the CB and 27meg fiasco, the authorities couldn't manage CB and with the influx of cheap drones into most superstores once again the legitimate flyer is targeted.

I hear stories coming across the pond that our colleagues in the US of A are battling potential new legislation requiring each aircraft to send out a identifying signal...transponder type thing, what happens in the States normally filters across to the UK and Europe.

 

NOTAM is "notice to Airmen" (politically incorrect pronoun notwithstanding). For the purposes of the Air Navigation Order model pilots are also airmen - so we have always been individually responsible for checking any NOTAMs before flight. It's not up to your committee, just as it isn't up to the committee to range check your model or ensure the failsafe is set correctly before flying. Think about it...some flyers aren't in clubs so they are on their own.

 

Also, if you think electronic conspicuity for models isn't on the horizon in the UK, then you might be in for an unpleasant surprise if/when it becomes technically simple/cheap...

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

3 hours ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

I would recommend everyone subscribes to http://skywise.caa.co.uk/  you then receive email notifications of any temporary restrictions. From a legal perspective it is the responsibility of the Operator to make themselves aware of any airspace restrictions and they should NOT be delegating that responsibility to a committee member.  See https://rcc.bmfa.uk/article-16#4-2-operator-responsibilities  

It is the owner of the Operator ID on the aircraft that is responsible, nobody else.

Yes, I missed the word not out. Apologies. 

 

I would recommend everyone subscribes to http://skywise.caa.co.uk/  you then receive email notifications of any temporary restrictions. From a legal perspective it is the responsibility of the Operator to make themselves aware of any airspace restrictions and they should NOT be delegating that responsibility to a committee member.  See https://rcc.bmfa.uk/article-16#4-2-operator-responsibilities  

It is the owner of the Operator ID on the aircraft that is responsible, nobody else.

[Philip Charlesworth]

For those who want to check NOTAM have a look at this link. Itgives details of current and upcoming NOTAM.  https://notaminfo.com/ukmap